GALBRAITH'S CASE.

Grey River Argus, 12 July 1922, Page 6

GALBRAITH'S CASE.

FINED FOR SPEECH. ON “DOWNFALL OF CAPITALISM.’’ THE MAGISTRATE’S VIEWS. WELLINGTON, July IL At the Police Court to-day, in the case against Alexander Galbraith, who was charged with inciting violence in an address entitled “The Downfall oi Capitalism,” at the Communist Hall. The charge was the sequal to a speech on June 4th last. Air Alacassey, for the prosecution, said that the proceedings were taken under section 2. of the Police Offenders Act, the penalty under which was three months’ imprisonment or a fine of £lOO., The address was delivered by defendant before fifty or sixty people. Detec-tive-Sergeant Lewis and Constable Watts were present at the meeting and made notes. The Crown relied on defendant’s attack on capitalism and his advocacy of force, as would be show u by the evidence adduced. Detective Lewis gave evidence as to WHAT DEFENDANT SAID. Galbraith had said that the workers could not be expected to draw a straight line and walk it like a tightrope. Force was necessary and that was the only way a change could be brought about. Tino Workers hvere offered the ballot box next. What good was that? Religion was the enemy of the workers. Parsons talked of the brotherhood of men, but all that was rot. Peaceful methods were no good at all. As was said of the Paris Commune. “We must break, shake ahd burst the whole system.” Referring to Russia, Galbraith said that they had not stuck to constitutional methods there. They got what they wanted. The capitalist class there had been corrupted and they would have to corrupt them here before they could succeed. The minister here, Galbraith had continued, had granted permission for the workers to say anything provided they did not advocate violence. That was no use. and the only remedy they had was to go to the ballot box and put in a party that might be termed the excretion ot the working class. He said that it was not likely that the capitalists were going to say: “You take it. I’ve had a good time,” and then hand it over. Recently a friend of his had been speaking to him about what could be gained by constitutional methods. He had told him that very little had been gained that way. When he spoke like that he did not mean them “to grab a sword and go down the street looking for Massey,” because people would only say the Communists were causing more trouble. There would be a street rabble that would do more harm than good. A blind man in the audience, (said witness), rebuked Galbraith and said he should not speak to the people there in the hall but should go out into the

street and speak to the people there. The blind man said that Galbraith should speak to the people in language they could understand. The defence to-day was a denial of the charge. ' It was contended that the lecture was scientific, with no intention to excite to violence. MAGISTRATE’S VIEWS. The Magistrate, Mr Hunt said he had no doubt that the accused had used the words which brought about the prosecution, and he was satisfied that the speech encouraged to lawlessness. “Galbraith, he proceeded, was probably carried away by his subject, and ’ I am satisfied that he did not put a curb on his tongue in order to comply with the law. ’ ’ The Magistrate said that if these speeches are used indiscriminately it will be very difficult to keep the peace. These sort of speeches may fall upon ill-balanced minds and result in serious crimes of violence. Such a person might bring a revolver and shoot a capitalist for instance. *lt is to the benefit of the country that these sort of things should stop. Had Ihe speech been made in a street, he would not have the slightest hesitation in sending the accused to gaol. If the accused aspired td be a maker of law, he should first learn to abide by itA fine of £25 was imposed, with costs, or in default, two months imprisonment.